Breakthrough!- 'The 'Pandora Gene'

Evolutionary theory is a peculiar mix of metaphysics and chemistry - which observation the theoretician would ignore at his peril. The chemical reactions of DNA are given colourful names and carefully screened for worthiness of attention. But the reason why the evolution theoretician screens out certain DNA reactions, the reason why he concerns himself with DNA at all is not a reason founded on chemistry, nor even founded on metaphysics, but a reason forged from the need to define a 'living' chemical, and that reason is mystical, and one that Dawkins provided. Without the non-material, morally defined gene pattern or spirit to define the evolutionists 'object of concern', the theoretician cannot say what he is studying, if it is not chemistry, for he can offer no significant reasons for his choices of objects of concern.

I do not expect that to be read to be understood, or to be understood. That's my experience with the technical classes.

John Jones wrote:

Evolutionary theory is a peculiar mix of metaphysics and chemistry - which observation the theoretician would ignore at his peril. The chemical reactions of DNA are given colourful names and carefully screened for worthiness of attention. But the reason why the evolution theoretician screens out certain DNA reactions, the reason why he concerns himself with DNA at all is not a reason founded on chemistry, nor even founded on metaphysics, but a reason forged from the need to define a 'living' chemical, and that reason is mystical, and one that Dawkins provided. Without the non-material, morally defined gene pattern or spirit to define the evolutionists 'object of concern', the theoretician cannot say what he is studying, if it is not chemistry, for he can offer no significant reasons for his choices of objects of concern.

I do not expect that to be read to be understood, or to be understood. That's my experience with the technical classes.

I'll take a crack at this, and then you can tell me if I'm a member of a technical class. Evolution theoreticians assume that life is purely a chemical process, and reject experimental or observational results that do not support this unstated hypothesis, and Dawkins layed the groundwork for this approach by equating life with DNA/genome.

In case I turn out to be a member of a technical class, perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the errors in my paraphrase of your comment.

Yes, life is a chemical process but neither evolution theory nor Dawkins uses chemistry to define a life-form. This latter point is almost entirely ignored.

John Jones wrote:

Yes, life is a chemical process but neither evolution theory nor Dawkins uses chemistry to define a life-form. This latter point is almost entirely ignored.

Is it your contention that chemical reactions by themselves are insufficient for the development or maintenance of "life forms?"

yitwail wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Yes, life is a chemical process but neither evolution theory nor Dawkins uses chemistry to define a life-form. This latter point is almost entirely ignored.

Is it your contention that chemical reactions by themselves are insufficient for the development or maintenance of "life forms?"

No, but life as 'chemical reactions' cannot differentiate life from chemicals in general.

life as 'chemical reactions' cannot differentiate life from chemicals in general.

John Jones wrote:

yitwail wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Yes, life is a chemical process but neither evolution theory nor Dawkins uses chemistry to define a life-form. This latter point is almost entirely ignored.

Is it your contention that chemical reactions by themselves are insufficient for the development or maintenance of "life forms?"

No, but life as 'chemical reactions' cannot differentiate life from chemicals in general.

So?

John Jones wrote:

life as 'chemical reactions' cannot differentiate life from chemicals in general.

Oh, I think life on the chemical level is easily differentiable from chemistry in general. Take photosynthesis for instance: carbon dioxide and water combine in the presence of sunlight to produce sugars and oxygen as a byproduct. It only occurs naturally within plant chloroplasts and cyanobacteria, as far as I know.

"Pandora's genes" is a summer light mystery about GM and frankensomething.
Its about as reputable a text as is the Bible.

So you have to explain how, if evolution theory is about chemicals, it can distinguish living chemicals from chemicals, or how it can isolate certain chemicals as different from other chemicals by virtue of the fact that they are alive.

jj said

Quote:

So you have to explain how, if evolution theory is about chemicals, it can distinguish living chemicals from chemicals, or how it can isolate certain chemicals as different from other chemicals by virtue of the fact that they are alive.

.




Is that it?Is this the depth of your insite? Perhaps you should read Watson's book "DNA" to understand the long and often devious path that biochemical and crystallographic research took in the discovery of RNA and DNA.

All will be revealed and your questions will ascend to a higher level.

yitwail wrote:

John Jones wrote:

life as 'chemical reactions' cannot differentiate life from chemicals in general.

Oh, I think life on the chemical level is easily differentiable from chemistry in general. Take photosynthesis for instance: carbon dioxide and water combine in the presence of sunlight to produce sugars and oxygen as a byproduct. It only occurs naturally within plant chloroplasts and cyanobacteria, as far as I know.

Yes, but then you have to say why you have chosen to look at plants and bacteria and what chemical reason makes them life-forms.